Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2004]JRC088

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

14^th May 2004

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

William Edward Neil

 

 

3 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, contrary to Article 6(1) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978. Count 1: MDMA. Count 2: MDMA. Count 4: Amphetamine Sulphate.
2 counts of:	Possession of a controlled drug, with intent to supply, contrary to Article 6(2) of the Misuse of Drugs (Jersey) Law, 1978, Count 3: MDMA. Count 5: amphetamine Sulphate.

 

 

Age:     48

 

Plea:    Guilty.

 

Details of Offence:

One Ecstasy tablet was found in Neil's jacket.  He was arrested and taken to his home address where a search warrant was executed.  During the search 15 Ecstasy tablets and 5 wraps of Amphetamine Sulphate weighing a total of 3.76 grams were discovered.  These items were shown to Neil and when asked what they were he replied "Ecstasy and Speed, it was something for a few friends tonight".  During interview, Neil stated the drugs seized were for his own personal use.  The comment made by him at the time of his arrest was put to him and he sought to clarify that statement by saying that the drugs were for his personal use but if he had an Ecstasy tablet etc. with him and had been requested by a friend then he would have supplied the same.  The Crown accepted that factual basis for the purposes of plea and sentencing and Neil was to be sentenced on the basis that he was not a street dealer and his activities were more properly described as "social supply".  The Ecstasy tablets had a street value of £160 and a wholesale value of between £96 and £128.  The Amphetamine Sulphate had a street value of £50 and a wholesale value of £35.

The Crown considering the approach to sentencing had regard to the Royal Court's decision in the case of Finnigan -v- The Attorney General (4^th May, 2004) which had preferred the approach set out in Gregory -v- The Attorney General to that of the approach in conquer -v- The Attorney General.  Accordingly, the guidelines established in Campbell -v- The Attorney General and Rimmer -v- the Attorney General did not apply and the Crown approached the issue of starting point by reference to the particular nature of the offence having regard to the quantity and value of the drugs involved and the level of involvement of Neil.  The Crown took for the purposes of sentencing a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Neil was a mature man aged 48 who was of previous good character.  These were his first offences.  Character references had been produced I support of his good character which also confirmed his good work record.  He was co-operative at the time of arrest and made the unsolicited comment which had led to the bringing of the Counts relating to the possession with intent offences.  He was equally co-operative throughout interview.  He had entered guilty pleas to the simple possession charges in the Magistrate's Court and guilty pleas to the possession with intent to supply Counts on Indictment.  He had been on bail throughout the Court proceedings and had complied with the bail conditions.  The Crown also had regard to the reports which indicated that Neil was suffering the consequences of a recent break up of marriage which in turn led to his use of illegal drugs.  He was, however, considered to be at low risk of re-offending although the Alcohol and Drug Service report indicated that Neil remained vulnerable to substance misuse.

In mitigation the Defence reiterated the points outlined by the Crown.  It emphasised that it was accepted by the Police that the drugs were for personal use and that the quantity of Ecstasy tablets were in keeping with his regular use of Ecstasy tablets as verified by the Reports.  He had lost his employment at the time but had been fortunate to find re-employment.  Following the break-up of his marriage his girlfriend had provided a degree of stability and she was fully supportive of him.  Whilst the Social Enquiry Report had recommended a Community Service Order as an alternative to Prison, it was contended that this might result in hardship as it would prevent him for earning monies to pay off the debts which he had incurred.

 

Previous Convictions:

None.

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	1 month' s imprisonment.
Count 2:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 3:	1 year's imprisonment.
Count 4:	1 month's imprisonment.
Count 5:	3 months' imprisonment , all concurrent, suspended for 2 years.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

It was a pity at his stage of life with a good record and a good work record he had committed these offences.  The Court regarded possession of Class A drugs as a serious matter.  The Court accepted that he was involved in a social supply and there was no commercial motive.  The Court had taken into account all of the mitigation matters and the information contained within the reports.  The conclusions of the Crown were right.

 

 

J. C. Gollop, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D. Gilbert for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Neil, it is a pity that at this stage of your life you should have spoiled what was until now a good record, including a good work record as a law abiding member of the community.  The Court does regard the possession of a Class A drug as being a serious matter.  We accept that any supply would have been a social supply and not with any commercial motive and we are going to sentence you on that basis.

2.        We take into account all the mitigating factors that have been drawn to our attention and the character references that have been provided by your counsel.  Having regard to all those matters and the submissions of your counsel we think that the conclusions of the Crown Advocate are right.  You will therefore be sentenced on Count 1 to 1 month's imprisonment; on Count 2 to 12 months' imprisonment; on Count 3 to 12 months' imprisonment; on Court 4 to 1 month's imprisonment; and Count 5 to 3 months' imprisonment, and all those sentences will be suspended for two years.  We order the forfeiture and destruction of the drugs.

Authorities

Gregory -v- A.G. (15^th January, 1997) Jersey Unreported; [1997/4].

Conquer -v- A.G. (4^th April, 2002) Jersey Unreported; [2002/73].

Criminal Justice (Suspension of Prison Sentences)(Jersey) Law 2003.

Campbell & Ors -v- A.G. [1995]JLR136.

Rimmer & Ors -v- A.G. [2001]JLR373.

Finnigan -v- A.G. [2004]JRC077.